~ The Power of Numeracy

An increase in global temperature required to match the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections is becoming increasingly unlikely. A shift to a mean projected pathway of 3 degrees increase by the end of the century would require an immediate, large, and sustained increase in temperature which seems physically impossible.

Global surface temperatures have not increased at all in the last 18 years. The trend over the last few years is even falling slightly.

Global temperatures continue to track at the low end of the range of global warming scenarios, expanding a significant gap between current trends and the course needed to be consistent with IPCC projections.

On-going international climate negotiations fail to recognise the growing gap between the model projections based on global greenhouse emissions and the increasingly unlikely chance of those models being correct.

Research led by Ben Santer, compared temperatures under emission scenarios used to project climate change by the (IPCC) with satellite temperature observations at all latitudes.

“The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes.” reports their paper in PNAS. Moreover, it is not known why they are failing.

“The likely causes of these biases include forcing errors in the historical simulations (40–42), model response errors (43), remaining errors in satellite temperature estimates (26, 44), and an unusual manifestation of internal variability in the observations (35, 45). These explanations are not mutually exclusive.”

Explaining why they are failing will require a commitment to skeptical inquiry and an increasing need to rely on the scientific method.

The unquestioning acceptance of projections of IPCC climate models by the CSIRO, Australian Climate Change Science Program, and many other traditional scientific bodies that has informed policies and decisions on energy use and associated costs must be called into question. So to must the long-term warming scenarios based on the link between emissions and increases in temperature.

The HadCRUT4 recently readjusted by UKMet, has a slightly cooler past and a gratifyingly warmer present — by about 0.2 C — than the previous anomaly trends. The new trend now nicely butts into Jim Hanson’s 1988 Scenario B, whereas it was badly undershot by previous HadCRUT anomaly trends.

So, we mustn’t worry. If global anomaly temperatures don’t meet the IPCC projections now, be reassured that they will do in the future.

It’s not just a standstill. It’s a 30 year natural slight decline from 1998 to 2028. Read what Geoff Wood (qualified in astrophysics) has explained ..http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/waste-heat-as-a-contributor-to-observed-warming/#comment-68988
The following are excerpts ..“As Doug has said about a dozen times, gravity modifies the mean free path between collisions. That is ‘every’ upward, ‘every’ downward ‘every’ sideways, ‘every’, ‘every’ free molecular path between collisions is modified. Therefore it is impossible for the modified ‘collisions’ that result, not to impart the gravitational ‘information’ into the macroscopic development of the gravitational thermal profile. This is the ‘diffusion’ process.
“At this point, we have a reasonable depiction of the thermal profile of ANY atmosphere. FROM BASIC PHYSICS.
“Given a simple reason why any atmosphere tends towards this isentropic profile as depicted and described by entry level physics, why would anyone look for a more complicated reason to explain what we already know!”
The point which Geoff and I make is that the “33 degrees of warming” supposedly caused by water vapour and carbon dioxide etc was already there due to the effect of gravity on the atmosphere. This happens on all planets, and also fully explains why the poles of Venus are over 720K, even though they receive less than 1W/m^2 of direct insolation from the Sun. For more detail read my article “The 21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science” easily found with Google. I’ve also recorded an introductory 10 minute video here http://youtu.be/r8YbyfqUvfY
Doug Cottonhttp://climate-change-theory.com

Professor Bengtsson and his coauthors submitted a paper that compared the projections of models with the climate as actually observed. More specifically, the paper was concerned with inferences about climate sensitivity from observations and climate sensitivity as estimated in IPCC reports.

Now the reviewer who rejected Bengtsson’s paper did so because he said that the comparison between the IPCC (model) estimates and inferences drawn from observations is not relevant to the discussion about climate change.

The reason given was that no correspondence should be expected between the models and observations.

How come Ben Santer was allowed to do what Bengtsson and colleagues were not permitted to do?